Tuesday, July 17, 2012

Lying to the children

Now THAT is how Man was created...
The British Humanist Association reports today that a Free School due to open in September 2012 intends to ‘teach creation as a scientific theory’. As the BHA states, Grindon Hall Christian School in Sunderland has a 'Creation Policy' on its website. I thought I would dissect it for you (not a very difficult task):
"We will affirm the fact that “God created the world and everything in it”. We will affirm that he did so “ex nihilo” – out of nothing."

Fact? How can something for which there is no evidence whatsoever be a ‘fact’?

"We believe that God, as sovereign Lord of the universe, is capable of creating the world in a few 24-hour days, or over a period of millions of years."

Hedging their bets there – just a small difference between a few days and a period of millions of years. (The Earth is, of course, rather more than millions of years old – it is actually about four and a half billion years old.)

"We do not share the rigid creationist’s insistence on a literalistic interpretation of the first chapters of Genesis. We believe it is honouring to, and consistent with a belief in, the inerrant Word of God to accept that the opening chapters of Genesis, as do many other places in Scripture, contain much that appears to be poetic. Thus, to insist on a literalistic interpretation of the passage(s) in question – which most Christians certainly do not feel obliged to do in regard to other instances of poetry and apocalyptic writings in the Bible - might in fact be very mistaken."

The classic theist position of ‘picking and choosing’ what to believe in their holy book. Whenever science disproves something in the holy book so utterly that it is accepted by the general population, the theist will say it was not meant to be literal!

"We are therefore very happy to believe that God could have created the world in six days. But we do not feel that it is helpful to affirm it as an unarguable fact."

Laughable. They believe it, but not enough to press the point!

"We do not believe that the very plain evidence supporting a lengthy process of evolution needs to be challenged by Christians."

Progress...

"However, we vigorously challenge the unscientific certainty often claimed by scientists surrounding the so-called “Big Bang” and origins generally.

"We believe that no scientific theory provides – or ever will provide – a satisfactory explanation of origins, i.e. why the world appeared, and how nothing became something in the first place."

...or perhaps not. The origin of the universe is, of course, something we may never know, but that does not mean it should be replaced by an idea for which there is no evidence at all. On the other hand, we do have a very good idea of how and why the Earth appeared.

We will teach evolution as an established scientific principle, as far as it goes.

“As far as it goes”? Evolution is an established FACT, supported by an enormous body of evidence.

"We will teach creation as a scientific theory and we will always affirm very clearly our position as Christians, i.e. that Christians believe that God’s creation of the world is not just a theory but a fact with eternal consequences for our planet and for every person who has ever lived on it."

“Scientific theory”? “Fact”? In the absence of any evidence whatsoever, creation can be neither.There is no justification at all for teaching creation as a possible alternative.

"We will affirm that to believe in God’s creation of the world is an entirely respectable position scientifically and rationally."

To believe in something for which there is no evidence can be neither scientific nor rational.
It is extremely concerning that our children may be taught such nonsense as if it were truth (other than just a belief system). The BHA urges you to write to your MP and to Michael Gove to oppose the plans for the school.

17 comments:

  1. i was going to make lots of comments... about christian teachings (to be fair i think the christians i hear in the media are a bit more rational) about sunderland (as a geordie i have to - it's divinely ordained, well sorta...) and then i just went FACEPALM. cos that's about all that covers it. people are gonna let these people teach children???

    hey! fancy getting real contentious and talking about circumcision???

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Circumcision?? Don't get me started...

      Delete
  2. btw your word verification is really hard. i bet you have to be ... like, god ... or someone to manage it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It is there to ensure that only geniuses like yourself can comment, SW.

      Delete
  3. We are at a place and time in our evolution where, through science we can either accept or reject religious claims. We are also living in a time and country where we do not approve of the abuse of children...emotional, physical and sexual...do we need to add another category of intellectual abuse where certain adults inculcate lies and delusional beliefs in them whilst they are young.And the religions were one of the first organised groups to recognise the vulnerabilities and gullibility of children.....hence the Jesuit's confident claim....give me the child and I will give you the man. To inculcaten and fix a mass delusion in children surely is abuse.

    ReplyDelete
  4. They should read Lawrence Krauss:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YUe0_4rdj0U

    If you have time John

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks. I know of that, and will try to give it a look.

      Delete
  5. Agree on circumcision and the German Judge's recent judgement.

    Do not agree that you put forward a better explanation on how the universe began. Then again I don't think I have read anything viable recently except that the Higgs Boson particle (god particle) has been proved to exist. Other than that science are at a big loss on that and Stephen Hawking's book and theory of the big bang is proved wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  6. God created the universe is the working hypothesis that science has been unable to disprove.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Science doesn't need to disprove a hypothesis for which there is no evidence!

      Delete
    2. Like I say, I have given you the evidence (god particle) above, and you have no better theory. The more relevant question anyway is if you want to live by religious laws or not. I prefer that to amoral secularism, but we are not going to agree on that and go round and round on that, we both have said our views on that on here at least three times. I do like to point out that political correctness is a contradiction in terms and that the Church of England has been tearing itself apart on this issue for years.

      I think Egypt is relevant, they voted comprehensively against your ideas recently.

      Delete
    3. "amoral secularism"??

      :-)

      A common mistake.

      Delete
  7. David...well done, you've demonstrated exactly how a delusion works....and gets trashed by common sense.....

    ReplyDelete
  8. Northern Lights18 July 2012 at 19:40

    Disturbing development. I would have thought that creationists would face practical problems in trying to teach anything.

    Can't be easy to hold a piece of chalk when you have no thumbs.

    ReplyDelete

Thank you for taking the time to comment on this post. Constructive comments are always welcome, even if they do not coincide with my views! Please note, however, that comments will be removed or not published if I consider that:
* They are not relevant to the subject of this post; or
* They are (or are possibly) defamatory; or
* They breach court reporting rules; or
* They contain derogatory, abusive or threatening language; or
* They contain 'spam' advertisements (including links to any commercial websites).
Please also note that I am unable to give advice.

Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.